🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <747@actnyc.UUCP>, jsb@actnyc.UUCP (The Invisible Man) writes:
> In article <1290@uop.edu> todd@uop.edu (Dr. Nethack) writes:

> Leary's drug phase in the 60's was not exactly an oportunistic career move.
> Quite the opposite, he sacrificed a promising career for something he believed 
> in.  

Counter-cultural crap??  How about if I believe in nuclear weapons,
so I go out and build one, is that ok too??

> The environment that T.L. helped create in the 60's was the opposite of
> "Anything to make a buck".  

It was opposite of anything period.  If the "establishment" had an opinion,
he had a counter opinion.  

> That phrase properly belongs to the 80's and the
> environment Ronald "Just say no" Reagan helped to create.

Now you would'nt be trying to imply I am a child of the '80's would you?
You would be grossly mistaken.

> As I remember it, Leary explained to people that the "set and setting" were
> very important factors in an LSD-25 experience.  He did not advocate taking
> LSD-25 for thrills.

But he did advocate taking it, and other things as well.


> I doubt your cousin is recovering from LSD experimentation.  In fact, I
> doubt he ever took it at all.  
> Correct me if I'm wrong.  

Ok, you are wrong, he took LSD, and other things in his environment,
trying to be like his older friends, who were into all sorts of crap.

> T.L. never had much
> good to say about heroin or quaaludes or the drugs being abused today. LSD
> is not addictive.  Nor has it the potential for profit making that todays
> street drugs have.

So this makes LSD irrelevant to the issue??

> I also must assume your cousin is not an adult, or, at least, that he bears
> no responsibility for his drug use in your eyes.

He bears responsibility, and so do his friends, as well as those who
taught him that such poison is acceptable.  You seem to not be real
bothered by this idea.

> This should probably be retitled and directed to different news groups.
> Anyone know which? 

How about /dev/null, at least tim will be there.

> (we don't get 'alt' groups here)

Neither do we.